The concept of supported decision-making is being promoted by many
disability rights advocates and organizations as an alternative to
guardianship. Supported decision-making, or SDM for short, rests on a
philosophy that, with proper supports and services, every person
can make his or her own decisions.

Some SDM proponents reject the
concept that some individuals may lack the capacity to make some decisions
and therefore it may be necessary for a court to appoint another person to
make decisions for the person who lacks such capacity. These advocates
want guardianship systems abolished and laws using the concept of
incapacity repealed. Other SDM proponents see a place for
guardianship proceedings, but want less restrictive alternatives used
when feasible. Spectrum Institute advocates for SDM if both the
process and the result are safe and legal.

Supported decision-making agreements, and related legal documents such as
medical and financial powers of attorney, are being explored by legislators,
judges, and professional associations, and at state and national educational conferences.
Current literature on the subject generally
lacks a sufficient discussion of risks, including in some very sensitive
areas of decision-making.

There is a place for private contractual
arrangements -- which is what SDM and powers of attorney are -- for some
seniors and people with disabilities . . . if they have the capacity
to understand the nature and consequences of an agreement when it is
signed, if there is no undue influence, if they have
independent legal counsel to review such documents, and if
implementation of an agreement is monitored by a neutral third party.
It is important that any SDM process should aim to minimize the risk of abuse and exploitation.

* The references include some essays
critical of the original version of AB 128 in Nevada. The final bill addressed most of the concerns.
The essays are included here to illustrate the importance of identifying
areas of concern prior to introducing a bill